How can I find my ELO

How can I find my ELO

I am by no means, a great ELO player or UR player in general, so don’t read this thread as if I am gloating about how well I know this game, or ELO for that matter. That is far from my point.

When I play ELO by the week, I will face several different opponents. I will face players with many different limits and various top ELO scores and rarely will see the same opponent more than once in the same week. Even at 1300 to 1400 where there are less opponents to face than at 1000 to 1100 I will still face different opponents every match with the occasional duplicate opponent as from a couple matches ago. Why does this happen? And more importantly, why do I even see this as a problem?

Elo was a ranking system first developed to rank chess players. It was developed so over time, players would be ranked according to their skill level. This was achieved by gaining a certain amount of points for win+ the variable of the opponents ranking. You all probably know that as most of you have played ELO and know to some degree how the scoring works. Players in the ranked mode would play each other within a certain range of similar skill level to either move up in ranking of move down. As what would happen in chess, players would have different titles for each category of points they had in the Elo ranked mode.

In the ELO mode, every week I am matched up with players of several different skill levels, or playing levels if you wish to call it seeing as this game is heavily played on ratios per turn, and rarely am I able to find the mean of my ELO ranking seeing as I could be playing anyone’s best Elo at any Elo value from 1100 to 1500. I won’t play the players of similar or equal Elo rating as me because EVERY WEEK the Elo resets of the Elo tournament and then prizes are distributed accordingly. Right now UR just has a weekly tournament with an Elo scoring system to determine top players of the week. There is no ranking system. There is no true way to find my real ELO as of now.

Now, I have one more question in mind being, will UR make a ranked game mode where I can find my Elo ranking? Or will I just have to play in the tournament every week to satisfy myself with a tournament ranking? It would not be too hard to develop and could even have an annual reset, seeing as bans could stay the same (or change up a bit) and the scoring system would be the same as UR’s excuse for an Elo ranking system.

I doubt a true ELO system would work for UR. The game environment is constantly changing, and there is some element of luck in each match. A true ELO system simply wouldn't be an accurate way to rate players.

some games in the past that i know of have run very good elo systems. i.e. Age of EmpiresELO scores in games that require a lot more skill are more "accurate" -- as in a player that is well below another player in that game has close to 0% chance of winning a match vs the much higher ranked opponent. ELO points are more meaningful when they are 1)harder to earn vs top players... and 2)easy to defend vs weaker players

Unfortunately in UR we do not have this situation. A player that is capable of 1250 in ELO is a very very dangerous opponent to a player that is capable of 1500 ELO. Anyone can win or lose vs anyone in this game. In chess or other games where skill is more critical, this isnt the case

Glad to read your responses, but although this game is very luck based, I think a way of more accurately determining someone's Elo would have to be over a larger time sample, and less resets. If people are able to produce consistent scores each week, an Elo system with an extended duration could give more accurate Elo values as to what I have been asking for.

This is an idea I am proposing to the community that would not harm the current Elo mode if a seperate mode is made for the extended duration NEW Elo mode.

I'm not really a great ELO player or UR player in general but this is what I feel about our current ELO system.

Our current ELO system is pretty flawed in a way that, we have this mindset that at about 1400 is considered top 100 and not many are willing to push harder to get a greater score.

You see, if MORE people decide to push for a greater score, the average score of that week's ELO will increase. Of course, the rewards dangled by the staff each week will determine if any hardcore players are willing to take on the challenge.

Also, part of the reason that contribute is the score matching range.

Up till now, I don't really understand this. Does that means a player with 1500 score can ONLY play against 1450 and above?
If so, this is very contradictory for those who can play against +150.

"You can only challenge an ELO player with an ELO value between -50 and +150 of your ELO value."

Back to the question, I agree with wasteroftime and there is no real indicator.

In my back of my mind, I was thinking of a new mode that has the ELO format but with a fixed amount of games.

The top x percent with the highest winning percentage will win something. I think this is a better indicator of testing skill.
After all, the banning of cards in ELO are the reason why they make the game 'balance'. As the winning % goes up, you'll fight against strongest people, assuming if they're pressing the play now button too.

It's a nice idea, but I doubt it's feasible. Averaging people's weekly ELO score wouldn't work; weeks where you didn't have much (or any) time/desire to play would make you seem like a much worse player than you actually are. On the other hand, if resets happened, say, every 4 weeks, there would be no incentive for people to play for the entire 4 weeks, because they could reach near their peak score in a single week. That would wreak havoc with prize distribution, weekly ELO bans, and probably a few other aspects of the game.

Ultimately, UR aims to please both the players who enjoy strategy, and the players who enjoy the element of luck. I think it does a fair job of meeting somewhere in the middle. I personally would love to see more "skill-based" modes of play and rating/ranking systems... Unfortunately, I doubt that's hat the future holds.